Wikipedia:Peer review/BP Pedestrian Bridge/archive1

BP Pedestrian Bridge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because FAC reviewers suggest it needs retooling. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the Chicago WikiProject Featured Topic Drive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Zagalejo

Here are some of my comments:

Lead:
I see that Daley Bicentennial Plaza is a redirect to Grant Park (Chicago). However, the Grant Park article says very little about Daley Bicentennial Plaza. Did you realize that?
- I did not know about the sparse mentioning, but I knew about the redirect, I guess. Is there a policy saying that when you link to something it has to be a good article or else it is treated like a redlink or something.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't have to be a great article, but it should contain enough to explain what the Daley Bicentennial Plaza is. Zagalejo^^^ 18:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I started a section on Daley Bicentennial Plaza in the article. I did not realize how few good sources there are for such a section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is it really necessary to mention the ribbon-cutting ceremony in the lead? That's not really an essential detail. It should go in the body somewhere.~~
- Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, that's a better place for it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the bridge is the first Gehry-designed bridge to have been realized. - does this mean he had designed other bridges that were never built?
- Yes they ((Pferdeturm USRTRA Bridge in Hanover, Germany and Financial Times Millennium Bridge in London, United Kingdom) are mentioned in the main body text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh. Never mind, then. I missed that.
Because of its curving form, the bridge is described as serpentine or snakelike. - serpentine and snakelike mean the same thing.
- The point is that these are the common words used to describe the bridge. Should the text be changed to make that point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you just need one or the other. And I'm not even sure you need to present this as someone's opinion. "Serpentine" is a straightforward, objective description, I think. Zagalejo^^^ 18:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point is that this is described in various thematically related ways: snakelike, serpentine, reptilian, etc. The sentence may need to be structured differently to include, both words, but the point is best explained with both in the text. Maybe it should be two sentences. I don't know, but I think to describe this theme it would be helpful to have both words. "Snakelike" is the more common of the two however. Also, although both words mean winding. Serpentine has the meaning of resembling a serpent in form and snakelike means resembling a snake in form. In this sense they are not necessarily synonyms.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Snake=serpent. So yes, they're synonyms. Now, reptilian is a bit broader than snakelike/serpentine, so if you want to say that the bridge is "reptilian or serpentine" or "reptilian or snakelike", go ahead. Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I learned something today. I thought a serpent was like a dragon (firebreathing) and lived in the water.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're thinking of a sea serpent. The word "serpent" by itself generally refers to snakes on land. Zagalejo^^^ 04:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are correct. If I had known the difference all along we would not have had to go back and forth on this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary plans:
The first sentence of this section is too long. Consider splitting it into multiple sentences.
- I have split it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A little better. I'm not sure if that's the best point in the narrative to introduce the final names for each structure. However, I can't think of an easy way to change it. Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~.The link in ref 8 isn't working.~~
- I have had some problems with the Newsbank articles in Firefox 3.0.1. I never had these problems with 3.0 and if I open up any of these pages in Microsoft Internet Explorer or Safari, they are not a problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's working for me in Explorer. Any idea why it's not working with Firefox 3.0.1? Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, but as long as we cite them properly, people can go to the library and find them even if they don't know to switch browsers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, now it's working with Firefox, so never mind. Zagalejo^^^ 04:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Firefox is erratic. I don't know why. Just keep in mind that when it is having a mood, you have to switch browsers to open the refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very preliminary and not well-conceived - five words that could probably be expressed in one word
- Should I know this word. I might just use preliminary. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are probably several words that would work. Preliminary is OK, but I'll let you know if I think of something better. Zagalejo^^^ 04:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I made that change, but will be receptive to further commentary on the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I fiddled with it a little bit. I'm confused, though. We note that "funding for [the bridge] was not committed" in November 1999. When exactly was the funding committed? Zagalejo^^^ 19:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can not easily trace the committment of construction funds. I amended the article for sponsorship funding, which occured between the ribbon-cutting and the park opening.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As I re-read things, it seems like the Jan 2000 announcement to expand the park to include a Bridge feature was the funding commitment. Then Gehry subsequently came back with a serious design.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Is there an outstanding issue here or should this be struck?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems like you're just guessing. That January 2001 article says that they were still collecting funds. Zagalejo^^^ 20:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later that month, Gehry unveiled his first design for the bridge, which included a winding bridge. - The design for the bridge "included" a bridge?
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original proposal in early 2000, which was expected to be built in 2002, included a bridge that was a mere 170 feet (51.8 m) long and 20 feet (6.1 m) wide. You don't build a proposal.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about the timeline for the bridge design. Did Gehry unveil his first design in 1999, or 2000? You seem to contradict yourself.
- Feel free to help clean this up. Basically, in 99 he designed the Pavilion with something that was a bit more than a sketch of the bridge. That was approved. Then in 2000 he had to propose a detailed design of the bridge as I understand the citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not really sure where to begin. I think several paragraphs will need to be rewritten from scratch to provide a clearer chronology. Zagalejo^^^ 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first plan was for a Z-shaped bridge that would have run diagonally northwest–southeast with western ramps, leading south, and eastern ramps, leading north. Confusing. I think you can drop "diagonally", and you need to clarify what's going on with those ramps.
- Do you want me to do something without using the link to the switchback dab but assume it is related to that and hairpin turn?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just want to know what direction these ramps are going in. Zagalejo^^^ 18:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would have required elevators to conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act and would have had a terminus in the empty north section of Daley Bicentennial Plaza. - Why not: "It would have required elevators to conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act and would have ended in the empty north section of Daley Bicentennial Plaza." "Terminus" is unecessarily complicated..
- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why do we introduce Blair Kamin as "Pulitzer Prize-winning..."? The article is about the bridge, not Kamin. It just seems like unnecessary detail to me.~~
- Since few international readers will recognize his name, it helps establish that he is a WP:RS, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, we already say he writes for the Tribune. Frankly, the Pulitzer Prize mention just comes across as boosterism to me. Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The phrase Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin describes him three ways. Most notable award, job, name. It is fairly common I guess just to use job and name. I just thought the average reader who sees Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin will still not understand his expertise. Since he comments on most features in the park and we are going for a WP:FTC we should carefully consider his introduction since it will be made on many pages and should be consistent. Can we get some third-parties to comment on this. I will see if I can get some opinions in the current Crown Fountain FAC discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final design:
~~Trellis links to a dab page.~~
- Thanks. The proper page overemphasizes the agricultural use of trellis, but I linked to it any way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are "switchback ramps"?
- Switchback is a sort of dab page that refers to Hairpin turn. I think switchback ramps are sets of stairs with 180 turns. Basically, in the context of this article we are talking about a fairly common type of staircase design, from what I can tell. This is not my area of expertise, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What further is at issue with this one?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was wondering if you were going to do more research for figure out what the switchback ramps are. Zagalejo^^^
      - Now, I have a ref that shows the common types of ramps.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wait a second, though -- ref 26 doesn't even say anything about switchback ramps, or ramps in general. Where did you come up with that in the first place? Zagalejo^^^ 03:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I apologize for my sloppy editing. I have added the proper citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, OK. Thanks. However, we don't have a source that explicitly says anything about the other ramps in relation to this bridge. Zagalejo^^^ 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What does the phrase "other ramps in relation to this bridge" mean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The Kamin article only mentions switchback ramps, not the other types of ramps. Ref 27 is from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and has nothing to do with the bridge. I'll agree that the bridge probably doesn't have anything that could be considered an L-shaped or U-shaped ramp, but couldn't portions of it be considered straight ramps?
        I still am not gleaning an actionable request.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Basically, you have to stick with the sources that actualy mention the bridge. As far as I can tell, none of the articles about the bridge say anything about L-shaped, U-shaped, or straight ramps. You can't say that the bridge lacks those ramps without having a source that explicitly says that. Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Something else I've been wondering about: if the bridge truly has a continuous 5% slope, then wouldn't that mean one entrance/exit is significantly higher than the other? IIRC, though, that's not what happens. The bridge slopes upwards, then levels off, and then slopes downwards. Zagalejo^^^ 03:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have not seen any secondary source information along these lines. It is not clear to me that one side is longer than the other, but if one is the flat part of the bridge may extend further on one side than the other.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a contributing factor to the park's selection for the 2005 Barrier-Free America Award in recognition of individual leadership in making the USA more accessible for all Americans. - sounds like a press-release
- Are you suggesting rewording or removal?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rewording. Zagalejo^^^ 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Better, but note that there's a sentence fragment floating underneath that paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I got removed that a couple days ago.
        Right. However, we might have to get some things straightened out with regards to the ramps. See my comment above. Zagalejo^^^ 03:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was designed to fulfil two purposes: to link the Historic Michigan Boulevard District and the entire Loop to the west with the Lake Michigan lakefront to the east, and also to be a berm sound barrier blocking noise on the eight-lane Columbus Drive from the Park's outdoor bandshell (Jay Pritzker Pavilion), by deflecting traffic sounds upward.- this might work better as two sentences
- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it is built to highway standards and can support a full capacity load of pedestrians - do you have any specific numbers? What exactly are the "highway standards"?
- I have contacted Millennium Park, who have been quite responsive to my questions. They told me to check the Gilfoyle book. I have not found any explanation there. They have also mentioned Ed Uhlir's name and I may contact him in the future. He was involved in construction management of the park. This might be WP:OR, so I am hoping that someone else knows something. None of the guys at WP:BRIDGE have been able to help either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Construction
What is an "angel hair finish"?
- Unfortunately it is not clear to me how productive WP:METAL at producing quality articles, and I do not think it has anything to do with Angel hair. I think it is a form of Brushed metal. I will try to add that link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "radius areas"?
- It comes from the source of that paragraph. I imagine it is a point on the bridge where when you look on one side it is curving one way and when you look on the other it is curving the other. It might be like being in the middle of the letter S. I am only guessing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because a specific horizontal line had to be maintained throughout the bridge - Is there any more information about this "horizontal line"?
- What you see in the ref is all I know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you really shouldn't write about things that you don't understand. Zagalejo^^^ 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stretch my limits all the time. We are a tertiary resource, which means we only have to relay what secondary sources understand. There is no requirement that WP editors be WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are two problems with that attitude. 1)You need to understand the sources so that you don't misrepresent them when you're paraphrasing. 2)If you don't know what everything means, how do you expect readers to follow along? Zagalejo^^^ 20:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        When I am the original author of an article many sections will have refs for almost every sentence for this reason. Whether I fully understand a subject or partially understand it I am rephrasing and everything is suppose to be WP:ATT to a secondary source that is a better WP:RS than me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following construction and during the weekend of the inaugural ribbon-cutting, Gehry was awarded an honorary degree from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. - Why is this in the construction section?
- Where do you want it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could we start a new section dedicated to awards/honors? Zagalejo^^^ 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Controversies
The only part of this worth keeping is the second paragraph. The rest has little to do with the bridge specifically, and probably isn't even important enough to include in Milennium Park.
- I assume you are talking about an earlier version.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. Zagalejo^^^ 19:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is something only a controversy if it last for more than a day? When something has a four year history days are important.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The controversy just doesn't have much to do with the bridge specifically. Zagalejo^^^ 18:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In each case this feature in this public park was closed. How does the fact that the bridge was closed not have to do with the bridge?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because the closing wasn't specific to the bridge, and wasn't caused by problems inherent to the bridge. If the CTA shut down the Addison Red Line stop for one day, would you mention that in the Wrigley Field article? Zagalejo^^^ 06:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think one of us is misunderstanding things. I am saying the BP Bridge was closed in the BP Bridge article, which is like saying Wrigley Field was closed in the Wrigley Field article or Addision was closed in the Addison article. If the CTA closed five stops for an entire day for a Papal visit, a featured class article on each of the five stops should mention it since it is not for routine maintenance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess my analogy isn't that clear. I don't really feel like explaining it. I'll just say this: the fact that the bridge was closed at one point isn't particularly interesting or important, and I think you're giving the closure much more attention than it deserves. I'd be surprised if more than 1% of Chicagoans even remember when the bridge was closed. It was never major news, even on a local level. Zagalejo^^^ 06:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Suppose you were writing an article about a Major League Baseball stadium. It would be worth mentioning that each summer the rodeo forces the baseball team to go on the road for two weeks. In an article about Madison Square Garden, you might want to say that the Knicks and Rangers have to give up the stadium for the circus for 10 days every year if that is the case. I would not remove information about closure for a circus or rodeo from an article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's fine to mention the annually-scheduled winter closing of the bridge, which would be similar to the annually-scheduled closings you mention above. Anything else is just trivia, IMO. But maybe you should start an RFC to gather more opinions. Zagalejo^^^ 07:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a tertiary resource, which means we report what secondary sources find notable, not what you or I find notable. If I find five or ten news stories on a subject we should include a summary of it whether you think it is trivial or not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think any individual closing received 5-10 news articles. Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The 2005 one alone had three stories in May announcing it in advance and three more in September for a total of at least six. It was important enough that they had to give visitors four months notice and in the September stories we can see that it affected 1500 tourists by noon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Substantial articles, or simply brief notices? Zagalejo^^^ 09:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Some of the articles are extensive detailing what the Park did with the money, how the charges were apportioned from an accounting perspective between rental fee and sponsorship monies, etc. See Millennium Park for greater detail. Others detailed the General Motors marketing scheme in response to the Toyota event. There is a lot more to the story that some features being closed for a day. This charge funded a whole year of activity. We could incorporate that level of detail here if it is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I don't think it would be necessary in this article. Mention it in Millennium Park if you want, but it's not necessary to one's understanding of the bridge. Zagalejo^^^ 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage seems reasonable to me. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics
My FAC comment about the New York Times article stands. It says nothing about the bridge's "seams". If you want to emphasize the seams, find a source that explicitly mentions them.
What's the difference between an "aesthetic curve" and a normal curve?
Gehry has a long history (going back to the 1960s and first appearing in his architectural designs in the 1980s)... Confusing. If the scale motif first appeared in the 1980s, how do you trace that motif back to the 1960s?
- Ref 46 goes back to the 1960s. I am not able to read ref 47 very clearly, but it may say designed in 1965 as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Again, "snakelike" and "serpentine" are synonyms. You just need to say one or the other.~~
- I don't see serpentine anymore so I am guessing this is based on an earlier version.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, looks like it. Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"a continuum of unexpected directions" - This doesn't sound like your writing. Could you quote the source, so I can see if this has been appropriately paraphrased?
- This comes from the following quotes that all come within three pages of each other.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gehry's architectural creations seem to split open and break apart, to burst out of closed containers and shoot off in all linguistic directions," argues one critic
  - Like the Pritzker Pavilion and BP Bridge, all of these structures include a variety of curves and swirling lines and evoke similar qualities: fluidity, contiuous motion, sculputral abstraction.
  - Nothing is tight in the Pritzker Pavilion or BP Bridge. Not only does the facade break out of the proscenium and the bridge flow in unexpected directions: each one simultaneously and distinctively breaks from the traditonal urban and architectural forms which surround the paviolion:. . .
    - "Unexpected directions" is somewhat POV. You might want to rewrite the sentence to make it clear that you are describing Gilfoyle's opinion. Zagalejo^^^ 03:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - These are not just Gilfoyle's opinions one critic says it shoots off every which way. See above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, whoever said it, you have to make it clear that it's an opinion. Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything in this section really has to do with "aesthetics" The last sentence, for example, is merely about the name of the bridge. It seems like your conflating "Aesthetics" with "Reception".
- I moved this last section into the controversy section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a better place. But I have a question. Did Gilfoyle himself criticize the naming, or did he simply mention that there were critics "out there"? You seem to be saying two different things. Zagalejo^^^ 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General note: These are just my comments from a quick run-through. I'll probably have more to say later, but this should give you enough to chew on for a while. Zagalejo^^^ 04:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]